Ethical Guidelines

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Laboratory Physicians (JLP) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, scientifically sound, and ethically compliant research in the field of laboratory and diagnostic medicine. The journal adheres to internationally accepted editorial and peer review standards to maintain transparency, fairness, and academic integrity throughout the manuscript evaluation process.

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation by the editor-in-chief or a designated associate editor. During this stage, the manuscript is assessed for

• Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
• Originality and scientific merit.
• Compliance with journal submission guidelines.
• Ethical approvals and patient consent (where applicable).
• Adherence to appropriate reporting standards.
• Overall clarity, structure, and presentation.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic editorial and scientific requirements may be returned to authors for technical corrections or rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

2. Plagiarism and Ethical Compliance Check

Prior to external review, all submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software to ensure originality and prevent academic misconduct. Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, redundant publication, or unethical research practices are handled in accordance with international publication ethics standards.

3. Assignment to Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor with subject-matter expertise in the relevant area of laboratory medicine. The handling editor oversees the peer review process and ensures that appropriate reviewers are selected.

4. Selection of Independent Reviewers

Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject-specific expertise,
• Publication record and academic credentials,
• Prior reviewing experience,
• Absence of potential conflicts of interest,

The journal follows a double-blind review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure an unbiased evaluation.

5. Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers are requested to critically assess the manuscript with respect to:

• Originality and scientific contribution.
• Study design and methodological rigor.
• Statistical analysis and data interpretation.
• Adequacy of literature review and citation support.
• Ethical considerations and compliance.
• Clarity, structure, and overall presentation of the manuscript.
• Relevance to clinical and diagnostic laboratory practice.

Reviewers provide detailed comments for authors as well as confidential recommendations to the editors, which may include:

• Accept without revision.
• Minor revision.
• Major revision.
• Reject.

6. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the handling editor makes a decision in consultation with the editor-in-chief. If reviewer opinions differ significantly, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer for further evaluation.

7. Revision Process

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors are asked to submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments, along with a revised version of the manuscript highlighting the changes made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment when necessary.

8. Final Decision and Acceptance

Once the manuscript satisfies the scientific, methodological, and editorial standards of the journal, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision regarding acceptance. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which includes copyediting, proofreading, and final author approval.

9. Ethical Standards and Editorial Integrity

The Journal of Laboratory Physicians follows recognized international ethical guidelines for scholarly publishing, including recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The journal requires:

• Disclosure of conflicts of interest.
• Ethical approval for studies involving human participants or animals.
• Informed consent where applicable.
• Transparency in data reporting and authorship contributions.

10. Timelines

• The journal aims to maintain an efficient and timely review process. On average:
• Initial editorial screening: 3–7 days.
• Peer review period: 2–4 weeks.
• Final decision after revisions: typically within 6–8 weeks from submission.

11. Reviewer Recognition

The journal acknowledges the valuable contributions of peer reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality of published content. Reviewer contributions may be recognized through annual acknowledgments and certification of review activity.